TheRPGSite

As long as we are talking about damage systems and the like, I'd like to bring forth a constant problem I see.

On one hand, in most "cinematic" games, the intent seems to be to provide PCs with a measure of "script immunity". It is considered a BAD THING[TM] in such a game that any shot could kill a character.

On the other hand, in much of cinema, there's the classic "hold up" scene, where someone has a gun at you, and they get to sit there, monolog, take you captive, blah de blah.

Obviously, emulating these two goals are at cross purposes. So, what are some good ways to resolve this conundrum that you have seen in existing games (if any) or can you think of?

The chaos of combat is more random than the barrel of a gun on the back of your neck...

The latter is more along the lines of a coup-de-grace.

Or, that might be a sufficient explanation for a rules difference.

Exactly.

If an assassin manages to sneak up on a sleeping character and hold a knife to his throat, I would not make him have to slice away for 25-100 rounds to get the job done just because the sleeper has 100 HP and knives only do 1d4.

One slash will do it.

Caesar:  It looks (to me) like you want to encourage the players to stand there and monologue tensely at each other as if their characters lives were at stake, but you don't actually want their lives to be at stake because that's not a stake you're willing to put on the table.

That's cool:  there are plenty of other ways to get people to stand there and do the John Woo thing.  For instance, you can reward them for it ... an escalating reward of some sort that gets higher the longer they can manage to plausibly stand there at point-blank range.  Do that and they'll start thinking up reasons to make the exchange more awkward (lifted straight from The Killer:  "What if the blind girlfriend walks in right now?  We can have a whole conversation, while trying to hide from her the fact that we have shooters levelled.  Maybe she'll serve us tea!")

But, whatever your solution, I think the way to find it is probably to say "We want a certain behavior (chatting over point-blank pistols) from the players ... the easiest way to encourage that is to threaten the lives of the characters, but that easy way is off the table for other reasons.  Let's find something else."

Here's what I've seen:

1) Threaten the NPC: This is probably the best way to get a heroic PC in a "hold up" scene.  The NPC is easier to kill than the PCs are.  Of course, when the PCs attack anyway and the little innocent lady has her throat cut...oh well.  I've done this a few times over the years and it usually works (with heroic types).

2) Tip the scales:  Yes, one crossbow-wielding NPC isn't going to get the PC to "stand down", because the player knows that the character will survive the first shot.  So, in response, make sure that it isn't just one NPC threatening the PC.  If it has to be one NPC, make his gun bigger...enchanted/explosive/etc.  This only works if the PCs are aware of the actual threat, otherwise the PCs may be in trouble (without the dialogue).

3) Assume the PCs will turn the tables: The option that I use most often is to just assume that the PCs will not "stand down" and instead play up the surprise in the NPC as the PCs ignore (and successfully avoid) the threat.  Just let the PCs be PCs and see what happens.


Those are the three options that I have used with varying degrees of success.  None of the three involve changing/bending/stretching the rules.  Number 2) is probably the most dangerous, as you may unintentionally bring the hammer down on the party.

Quote from: TonyLBCaesar:  It looks (to me) like you want to encourage the players to stand there and monologue tensely at each other as if their characters lives were at stake, but you don't actually want their lives to be at stake because that's not a stake you're willing to put on the table.

That's cool:  there are plenty of other ways to get people to stand there and do the John Woo thing.  For instance, you can reward them for it ... an escalating reward of some sort that gets higher the longer they can manage to plausibly stand there at point-blank range.

That was one line of thinking I was entertaining. Spycraft has a variety of character abilities that basically boil down to "force the GM to do something nice for you. If the GM refuses, take an action dice" (Spycraft's version of the in-game generic short term bennie.) It would be fairly easy to hang action point bribes out there.

Another thing I was thinking is "virtual attacks". That is, if the villain scores a critical hit/coup de grace/what have you, the GM can, at his option (possibly requiring some resource expendiature if your game works that way) "hold" the action. If the PC tries something, the action happens. (If you want to play Mexican stand-off, you might give the PC some sort of check to avoid this fate.)


For reference, what got me thinking about this was the scene in Kill Bill Vol 2. where she is relating when she convinces the shotgun wielding hit-woman that she is pregnant.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAnother thing I was thinking is "virtual attacks". That is, if the villain scores a critical hit/coup de grace/what have you, the GM can, at his option (possibly requiring some resource expendiature if your game works that way) "hold" the action. If the PC tries something, the action happens. (If you want to play Mexican stand-off, you might give the PC some sort of check to avoid this fate.)

Yeah, I've tried that in a few systems ... it's fairly easy to bolt in.  My experience is that it defers the problem, but only a little.  I mean ... if the action that will happen is "Kill your character dead, dead, dead," and that's something that you won't really allow to happen then you're actually bluffing when you say "If you don't behave, this action will get executed."  And the player knows that you're bluffing.  The virtual attack system holds together for precisely so long as they don't call your bluff.

That's fine, as long as it's a sort of bass-ackwards way of getting people to understand "Hey, in this situation you're going to choose to behave this way because you want to, and the rule is just a reminder in case you forget."  But if you're genuinely trying to use the rule to constrain someone's choices then they're likely to, someday, say "Y'know what?  I spit in his face.  What'cha gonna do about it?"

Make sense?  Not that it's a bad rule (I've used it to good effect) but it's only a rule for certain types of social situations.

I've never really used rules for situations like these. I mean whenever stuff like this happens in my campaigns, the rules kind of fade away.

A killer sneaks up on an unsuspecting character - a killer blow (maybe) is delivered. If the system has fate, luck etc points, cool, the character may survive, otherwise the character is dead - "d - e -d ,dead" :D

There are loads of Woo-offs so to speak. If someone, maybe not even as powerful as you points a gun at you at close range - you try to negotiate or at the very least try to get into a better position to carry out an action which would improve your chances of survival.

A lot of this has to do with who the characters are. Most times the players in my group have fleshed out their characters to such a degree, that when put  in a position of danger, they realize they have much more to lose than just their lives.

The cop in my Hunter game, has a wife and very sick kid to support, notwithstanding battling the forces of corruption that seems to have seeped into his city/home.

The kick ass avenger in Feng Shui has a wayward charge begging to be allowed to stray onto paths best left to those of a more malicious temprement.

Combat is combat. But there are certain situations...momentsthat occur in a game/session that we all know must be resolved in a certain way. Strangely this has a lot to do with realism. Not real realism but maybe movie realism. Those moments when you are facing down the barrel of a gun, staring at the point of a sword, or looking into the eyes of someone maybe less powerful but who has somehow managed to get the drop on you.

Those moments, are pretty clear. The bad/confused guy is pointing a gun, point blank at the whole group or a character. The rules allow the characters to do their thing and flick off the whole incident as nothing more than an inconsequential bump on the road to glory.

But here's the thing. In my games (for my players) these situations are what rpgs are all about. These moments - the tough talk, the monologues, the pleadings, etc - are meant to be played without rules. Here your characters lives are at stake and it's more than just about combat. You could die - the killer sneaking up on you - but that's just part of the game. It's why we play.

Now all this seems very arbritary and very deprotagonizing (sp) but the fact is, we as a group have reached an unspoken consensus as to how these moments in our games should be played out. Yeah, I know, a lot of power seems to reside in my hands as the gm and the stakes are not agreed upon by all concerned, but it has worked for my campaigns.

This method is kind of dodgy, and really does not contribute in any concrete manner to the topic at hand, but I've discovered that if the players trust the gm, you don't really need rules to cover situations like these.

Regards,
David R

Misunderstood the question - post removed.

-mice

Real simple.

Make the MDC out to be DC: 10+Damage

And if they are held, unsuspecting, jerking off, fucking a sheep, whatever, they are forced to make an MDC or start DYING!

Not reduced to 1 hp. Not reduced to 0, but reduced immediately to -1 and unconsciousness.

If they make the MDC, it's like they jerked their head back, got their hand underneath the wrist, whatever.

A lot of GM's forget about the Massive Damage Check.

"Any time the character sustains more damage than they have a Con score, they must succeed in a massive damage check."

That check turns thing suddenly fucking brutal. Don't forget, a heavy machinegun does around 1d12 points of damage PER HIT!

So our main man with the plan, Senor Eeeeehvulguy, hits the butterfly trigger on his M2A2 Nifty Fucking Fifty and plows Ima Supordood the hero with a burst. That's 2d20 in damage, and suddenly he has to make a Fortitude Check DC: 21 (On average), or be dying.

Next round, Senor E shoots him again while he's lying on the ground writhing in agony.

Quote from: T-WillardReal simple.

Make the MDC out to be DC: 10+Damage

And if they are held, unsuspecting, jerking off, fucking a sheep, whatever, they are forced to make an MDC or start DYING!

Not reduced to 1 hp. Not reduced to 0, but reduced immediately to -1 and unconsciousness.

If they make the MDC, it's like they jerked their head back, got their hand underneath the wrist, whatever.

A lot of GM's forget about the Massive Damage Check.

(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a10/mom2febgirls/Smilies/scratch.gif)

I wasn't really talking about d20 modern to forget it. But even were I to crank the MDC down like Modern, I'm in the exact same situation as I was above when I was saying:

Quote from: meOn one hand, in most "cinematic" games, the intent seems to be to provide PCs with a measure of "script immunity". It is considered a BAD THING[TM] in such a game that any shot could kill a character.

So this doesn't solve the conundrum. It embraces one end of it.

OK, I'll take a stab at this, and it's pretty much Tony's answer. Reward the player with some bonus cookie thing for every action (or whatever is appropriate) his character is "under the gun" of a bad guy. Perhaps each cookie could be traded in for a +1 on any action against that bad guy, or just Spycraft action dice or whatever.

Because in cinema, no hero ends up actually dying in those classic "hold up" scenes, do they? Usually, it's "hold up"->"bad guy gives monologue or whatever"->"good guy suprises bad guy and turns the tables/gets away".

I'll point out that, once that rule is in place, players will start looking for plausible ways that their characters can have their conversations at gun-point.  Why involve NPCs at all?

Could be a good thing, could be a bad thing.  Certainly there's a cinematic style where "Friendships form over the barrel of a gun" makes perfect sense.

Quote from: TonyLBCould be a good thing, could be a bad thing.  Certainly there's a cinematic style where "Friendships form over the barrel of a gun" makes perfect sense.

I think it would be hard to enforce that one without lots of player collusion. :eek:

How do you mean?  Two players get together, have a conversation at gun-point, make up an excuse to break without shooting each other, pocket handfuls of Action Tokens (or whatever) and grin like cats with canary-feathers hanging out of their mouths.

To me that seems like a lot less difficult coordination than making sure that the fighter is far enough away from the epicenter of the fireball not to get scorched.  It's team-work, right?

Quote from: TonyLBI'll point out that, once that rule is in place, players will start looking for plausible ways that their characters can have their conversations at gun-point.  Why involve NPCs at all?

Could be a good thing, could be a bad thing.  Certainly there's a cinematic style where "Friendships form over the barrel of a gun" makes perfect sense.

If you don't mind it you could have things that way, but it would be trivial to avoid that kind of thing if you don't want it.

For example, instead of saying that acting a certain way under the gun gives you special benefits, you could make a general rule that the GM can offer the players valuable prizes for playing along with any given scenario.  That would be a more robust rule.

Alternately, instead of using meta-rules like that, you could just design a system that gives people massive bonuses in combat if they "get the drop" on someone.  (I won't bother describing the many ways you could do that.)  That's the route I'd take.

It seems like an odd assumption that players will want to point guns at each other, rather than a third party, though.

One option might be to have what is at baseline a highly lethal system, say something like CP2020 but then to hyperinflate the luck points idea, seperate to the health system, to account for heroic type action and characters.

EG:

Slippery Jim is being shot at by a DeMarco goon with an SMG.

The goon gets enough of a roll to hit with five rounds, Jim would be toast but he spends five points from his luck pool to avoid all five rounds which, instead, dramatically shatter a ton of drinks bottles behind the bar.

When their luck runs out they go down like a sack of shit just like anyone else, which means there's an element of resource hoarding to consider as well.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIt seems like an odd assumption that players will want to point guns at each other, rather than a third party, though.

If what they're rewarded for is having guns pointed at them?  Doesn't that make the assumption "Players will want to point guns at each other, rather than have guns pointed at them by a third party"?

Quote from: TonyLBIf what they're rewarded for is having guns pointed at them?  Doesn't that make the assumption "Players will want to point guns at each other, rather than have guns pointed at them by a third party"?

In general, though-- pitting the players against each other isn't that much fun, and limits the story to only what the players can do to each other. It's obviously not impossible, but it isn't that interesting.

Characters need to go places and so stuff in order to get into these situations.

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.  I look at a movie like, for instance, The Killer and I say "So ... two PCs (maybe three, if you include Sydney) and then a big bad boss with a ton of mooks.  The PCs spend most of the session sniping at each other in order to generate enough resources collectively to have a shoot-out in a church that makes the GMs big, scary boss look like the fuckin' pansy he is."

I think it would be fun to play a game that encouraged that sorta shit.  But, like I said, maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn general, though-- pitting the players against each other isn't that much fun, and limits the story to only what the players can do to each other. It's obviously not impossible, but it isn't that interesting.

Characters need to go places and so stuff in order to get into these situations.

Deadlands created rewards for playing to your flaws, which you could then spend during play.  That worked brilliantly but did tend to lead to some intra-party conflict which I do find to be against the spirit of RPGs for the most part.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn general, though-- pitting the players against each other isn't that much fun, and limits the story to only what the players can do to each other. It's obviously not impossible, but it isn't that interesting.

I think its potentially interesting, in that its an dramatic adversarial situation that doesn't get reflected in RPGs that much, so it could be fresh.

But then, adversarial situations between PCs often turn into adversarial situations between players, so if not handled carefully or with players that are both "into it", it could be trouble in the making.

Most cinematic games ive them the cookie at the beginning. If there out of cookies when bad guy puts a gun in his face they have to hope he doesn't shoot them.
 
Thre are different ways to do cinematic.
 
Why not run a Gritty Damage system with some cinematic backup points. The Massive Damage save is a good one, as people can spend their action points to get a bonus on it.
 
 
It gives them Script immunity to a point  + keeps Lethality
 
What system are you playing by the way? That might help us answer your question :)

The most obvious path (to me) is to have the 'lethal' blow not kill but in some other way cost the character.  It might cost them some metagame mechanic to avoid dying, or their character might be disabled and out of the action.  Waking up in the hospital for instance.  They might even have some lingering problem from the experience.

Just because you don't want to kill a character doesn't mean there aren't costs for failure.

Quote from: MaddmanJust because you don't want to kill a character doesn't mean there aren't costs for failure.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but to me failure is losing your character for good. Anything else is just a temporary setback. "Losing the battle, but not the war", so to speak. That's not a cost to me.

Quote from: YamoMaybe I'm just old-fashioned, but to me failure is losing your character for good. Anything else is just a temporary setback. "Losing the battle, but not the war", so to speak. That's not a cost to me.

Heh, and maybe I'm all newfangled, but losing a character isn't a very interesting cost to me.  I mean it's not like losing a character means you don't get to play anymore.  It means that your goals and aspirations for the character will never come to pass, but you get to bring in a brand new character with all new goals and aspirations that the previous characters' demise doesn't hinder at all.  It looks like more of a cost to keep the same character but have their goals and desires put further away from them.

You can do it either way, and my main interest is in which is more important to stay accurate to the genre you're playing in and what is the most fun.  Several types of my fun are interfered with by frequent character death.

Quote from: MaddmanJust because you don't want to kill a character doesn't mean there aren't costs for failure.

I've made groups strongly motivated by revenge by doing something to a character other than just killing them when they lose.  Like, while someone was down, the villain grabbed their super cool weapon and ran off.  Or, because they were down, they were unable to save an NPC that they like.  Or, now they have an ugly scar that impairs most initial reactions.  

If I had just killed one or more characters, the overall game wouldn't have been as cool.  Instead, new characters not already involved in the story show up and lots of earlier subplots would have been dropped.

Those are good ideas.  I'm a lot more attracted to the idea of risk as characters losing something than risk as players losing their time investment.

There was a major disconnect, I think, between players who came to the hobby from wargames and players who came to the hobby through video games.  CRPGs rarely use character death as anything but a momentary setback, save for TPKs that lose you the game (note that permanent character death, when it happens, usually serves as a major plot point.)

In fact, those differences could account for a lot of the differences between the old school and the new.  When your first dungeon was a video game, you never learned to value the "skill" aspect of rpgs.  You never ran back to town to hire pikemen and war dogs, never spent 3,000 gp on training costs so you could level, never whacked a pile of shit and rags with a 10' pole to make sure it didn't have Rot Grubs infesting it.  You power leveled until you could clear the stage, beat the boss and get on with the game.

I'm sure there's a lot to be said about the effect games like Final Fantasy IV, Phantasy Star and so on had on the generation of roleplayers that played them.  I've been trying for half an hour now, but it seems it's not going to happen right now.

Quote from: fonkaygarryThose are good ideas.  I'm a lot more attracted to the idea of risk as characters losing something than risk as players losing their time investment.

There was a major disconnect, I think, between players who came to the hobby from wargames and players who came to the hobby through video games.  CRPGs rarely use character death as anything but a momentary setback, save for TPKs that lose you the game (note that permanent character death, when it happens, usually serves as a major plot point.)

In fact, those differences could account for a lot of the differences between the old school and the new.  When your first dungeon was a video game, you never learned to value the "skill" aspect of rpgs.  You never ran back to town to hire pikemen and war dogs, never spent 3,000 gp on training costs so you could level, never whacked a pile of shit and rags with a 10' pole to make sure it didn't have Rot Grubs infesting it.  You power leveled until you could clear the stage, beat the boss and get on with the game.

I'm sure there's a lot to be said about the effect games like Final Fantasy IV, Phantasy Star and so on had on the generation of roleplayers that played them.  I've been trying for half an hour now, but it seems it's not going to happen right now.

Probably the single most insightful post I've seen on this site so far. And that's saying a lot.

Kudos.

Thanks a lot, Yamo.  

I did a followup post in the "What Game Designers Do Wrong" thread, IMO it's inferior (I got to rambling,) but there's a coherent essay in this idea, somewhere.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadOn the other hand, in much of cinema, there's the classic "hold up" scene, where someone has a gun at you, and they get to sit there, monolog, take you captive, blah de blah.

I've been meaning to blog about the subject of what I am calling "go or no-go" situations.  Jonathan Tweet talks about them in his little article There Is No Try (http://www.jonathantweet.com/jotgametry.html), S. John Ross covers similar ground in the Risus Companion, and Ron Edwards talks about the topic a bit somewhere, calling it the "Whiff Factor".  The fact that all three of these guys point to similar solutions makes me suspect that they are on to something.  I recommend the Tweet article, it's short and to the point.  In short, in some situations instead of a roll gauging success or failure, sometimes a skill check will decide go or no-go.  If your roll suceeds, you have saved the hostage or whatever.  If you fail the roll the GM simply says "All your instincts say that won't work, you'll need to figure out something else."  Edwards offers as an alternative success or success plus complication, yes you saved the hostage but because you blew the roll the DM now has the authority to pimp you in another way.  I'm not sure I like Edwards' idea.  It keeps PCs looking badass, but the GM inventing new shit to fling on the fly runs counter to the way I normally GM.